Matt Arnold wrote:
> #471287 is _NOT_ an upstream issue! Furthermore if you had been paying
> attention to the bug report logs you would have noticed
I think the user wrongly interpreted "upstream".
We are "upstream" from Ubuntu, but we are not the real/initial upstream.
>> No, the patch is wrong!
>> BTW "-n" is not a bashism, but a long time convention starting
>> from the *BSD, IIRC, and cited also on POSIX.
>
> I thank you for trying to help however i think we have this well under
> control and i don't wish to spam upstream with bugs that are purely
> packaging related. Thanks again for trying to help :)
This comment was to the people that added tag upstream, or to
my comment?
Anyway:
The patch is wrong. echo "\c" is less portable than echo -n.
echo -n is the right thing to have. Eventually, simple portable shell
could wrap "echo", at level of init.d handler.
BTW POSIX discourages to use "echo -n" to print "-n" (and it say
that it is not portable), and I think no sensible person will do that,
so eventually a wrapper will have no problems.
BTW the -e option should be removed (not it is reported on initial
report, but missed the patch).
- echo -en "\nAlready running!"
+ echo
+ echo -n "Already running!"
but I'm not so sure that this need to be written in a new line.
Eventually the lsb helper function could be used, so that
eventually we can have colored boot.
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
